Talk:Hispanic/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Are Spanish people "Hispanic"?

Given the modern meaning of "Hispanic", it seems unlikely that actual Spanish people, from Spain, qualify - since they are, after all, white Europeans. ðarkuncoll 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The modern meaning is supposed to transcend racial and even ethnic origins, much as how "Anglo" is used to mean more than English blood, solely tied to the language convention. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hispanic as is understood by the overwhelming majority of people in the US and many other countries (including use in the media, police, health care institutions, employers etc) is equivalent of Mestizo and indeed treated as a race. To deny it is to live in other world. The technical census definition that nobody uses is completely out of sync with how the word has evolved and is used in the real world. Spaniards are Europeans by race and culture and they don't fit anymore into that Hispanic label. As it has been mentioned previously, they are much more related in culture/race to other Southern Europeans than to "Hispanics". Are Italians or the Southern French Hispanics also? No way a Mexican Mestizo could be considered from the same ethnicity than an ethnic Spaniard/Italian/Southern French. -Kg--81.184.133.122 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

are all yanks retarded or just TharkunColl? Hispanic comes from "Hispania". The problem is in your mind, confusing american natives with europeans. --84.126.10.233 (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is a bit complicated and dates back a few centuries. English nationalism grew strong anti Spanish since the XVI century, when Spain was the foremost world power. This type of nationalism went hand in hand with Protestantism and the Beginnings of Nordicism. In this context some Northern European nations were envious and jealous of Spanish success (Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, parts of France and Germany, and also most of Italy) became Spanish colonies (by the way, not only Hispanic America). In this situation, a strong anti Spanish propaganda began to emerge, that due to the fact that it coincided with the birth of the racial doctrine known as Nordicism (born out of an inferiorty complex of Northern Europeans towards successful Southern Europeans at the time and in history) began to take racial overtones. In this line of thinking the Spanish began to be attacked as being a different race that wanted to subjugate Northern Europe, a race that was supposed to be even Non/White, or at least less white. It was the only consolation they had left for their mediocrity at the time, and this myth was made specially strong by the English and then by the Americans, who passed it on onto the Hispanic Americans as a whole, this myth being reinforced by the mixed origins of Mexicans , their neighbors.

In fact, this myth has become very strong due to Anglo Saxon Propaganda for centuries. Let's take an example:

Often the stereotype about the Spanish is about a short and swarthy person, stereotypes that have often been elevated to the categories of racial features, representing a race apart.

Like the field of genetics is presenting important surprises, http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf other studies are doing the same in relation to body height and skin pigmentation.

About body height, recent studies show that the average young Spaniard is even taller than the average Briton, and young Spaniards are still growing.

See: http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12501087

From there I cut and pasted this:

"The improvement in Spaniards’ lives is instantly visible. Many elderly people are short, stunted by the hunger they suffered as children in the hard years of fascist autarky after Franco won the civil war of 1936-39. Young Spaniards are strikingly taller than their grandparents, exemplified by Pau Gasol, who measures seven feet (2.13 metres) and was voted the most valuable player when Spain won the latest world basketball championship."

See also: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Human_height

About skin pigmentation, in a 21st century study that disregards the effects of tanning, Spaniards have some of the lighest skins in the world.

See page 18. http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

If are too lazy to read it here is a summary. The link is to a page that is controversial but the summary is good. In fact you can check it in the original paper if you are diligent. I include it here for those too lazy. You can also see some shocked reactions that reflect the preconceived vision of reality and its reactions before facts.

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2006/01/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html

In short, it seems that some features that were related to race have more to do with the environment and living conditions than with anything else.

The myth of the Spanish and racial overtones were also part of the black legend:

Here is an illuminating account,

cultural critics and historians such as Roberto Fernandez Retamar, Benjamin Keen, Patricia Shaw, David J. Weber, and, most recently and convincingly, Eric Griffin, have dedicated hundreds of pages to understanding the development and persistence of the Black Legend in Europe. In his excellent study, Eric Griffin outlines the evolution of English anti-Spanish sentiment from the early modern period to the present and discusses how an uncritical acceptance of many ethnic stereotypes that began in the sixteenth century can be traced to the present day. He begins by mapping out the Black Legend as it appears in Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta, in which one can see an essentialized representation of the Spaniard as "other." In Marlowe's work, as in the contemporary European films I shall discuss in this essay, the villain utters Spanish phrases at key moments in the articulation of the plot. Griffin insists that by emphasizing the villain Barabas's Spanish-ness, Marlowe reinforces through literature the stereotype of the avaricious Spaniard that was already widespread as a result of the translation and diffusion of Bartolome de las Casas's published accounts. Griffin then points to Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, which dramatizes "much the same kind of ethno-nationalist problem", concluding that "in the English public mind of the 1590s, anti-Semitism and Hispanophobia seem to have been two sides of the same coin".

In short, the Spanish as a race apart is part of a type of propaganda that is very old in Anglo Saxon countries. Then, if we take into account that Anglo Saxon countries in general and the US in particular are so obsessed with racial issues and with the so strong desire of presenting themselves as the whitest in the world (funny this all started with an inferiority complex), there you have it all: Spaniards are not that white and people of Hispanic America are not white either, even if they are of 100 per cent European ancestry. This all is very funny and interesting if the roots of the issues are well known.

If to finish this contribution we add that 21st century genetic science is proving that the English themselves and the Britons come mainly from the Spanish, the comedy is served. For this latest statement see Stephen Oppenheimer and Brian Sykes. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.186.204 (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Bravo to Kun.

Not only is this foolish obsession with race in America stupid, it begins to border the insanity of another race obsessed society, NAZI Germany. This Anglo-centric race theories have the following premises:

Anyone with a cultural connection to Spain now has a racial classification. This notion has absolutely no basis in science, but now has the added caveat of hardcore genetic studies that blew this crap out of the water.

Racial purity. It simply does not always exist here. Almost anyone with roots that go back before the great European migrations here in The USA does not have them. The 1st successful English settlement, Jamestown, had a shortage of Caucasian women. What did red blooded Englishman do when confronted with that circumstance?? Mmm?

African and Indian blooded people do not exist south of the Rio Grande. They are all racially regarded as Hispanics, obvious things aside.

This term term "Hispanic" should be permanently expunged from the English language and Mexicans and other likes peoples should be re-classified as the racial Indians they truly are. --Charles A 20:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

If the Spanish came up with an ethnicity/race called "Anglo" which would include all their mutts/former slaves of America it would be kinda of a "How do you like them Apples" scenario wouldn't it? Anyways This has all been "typical" "uneducated Americans" stealing words and giving it their own warp meaning no wonder the world hates them and think of them as the stupidest people. Hispanics is the old term to present day Spanish and Portuguese people of Hispaniola (now present day Spain & Portugal); it has absolutely nothing to do with the brown people of Americas. Hispanic as ethnicity Does Not exist not even in the so-called hispanic countries like Mexico and Most certainly is NOT a Race!!! Your friends from Spain who are Non-American citizens would call themselves Spanish first and foremost rather than Hispanic cause Hispanic is the old term that includes Portugal. BUT if they become American citizens the American meaning of Hispanic does apply to them too not just south-americans. Though I find it Funny how people would say Spanish people R not Hispanic? when Spanish people are the REAL Hispanics and the Real original race of Hispanics is the caucasian race again this is the real original meaning of Hispanic going to its true roots which are European. Though I must add I find it fascinating how white South-American immigrants like Alexis Bledel who may not have Spanish/Portuguese ancestry is proud of her Hispanic origins/culture =) and she's practically "whiter" than Britney Spears. Hehehe In a way it's like White people are taking back this Term not just leaving it to the brown people who get away with it in the USA.
Also Has anyone filled out the U.S Census 2010? It has Hispanic as a separate category to the race category. So those who have marked themselves as Hispanic have to also fill out the race question too. So there, even the American term Hispanic says Hispanic is Not a race this is in the U.S Census!!!
BTW, did you know Race for Hispanic is White by default unless otherwise stated. So if a person uses the infamous "other" incorrectly (and YES writting mestizo is Incorrect as it is not a race) or don't mark anything at all by default they are counted as White.(I bet A Lot of people don't know this!!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anen87 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

English colonialism isn’t analogous to that from Iberia given that from the outset the armies that defeated the ruling native empires were comprised mostly of other indigenous nations, with accidental biological genocide via Old World diseases wiping out a large percentage of the native population rather than actual warfare. This allowed Westernized mestizos who outnumbered those of pure European ancestry to thrive at the expense of indigenous population and gain the ascendancy in the subsequent centuries. Iberia was ruled by Muslims for almost a millennium anyway, and the population in Southern Europe unsurprisingly share similar DNA to those from the Middle East (Arabs) and other people across the Mediterranean (Turkey, North African, etc..). Anglo colonies on the other hand were generally self-contained and always kept their societies fairly ethnically homogenous with little miscegenation occurring. Those complaining about how Hispanic is used in the US should show the same passion about referring to indigenous Americans as ‘Indians’. At least Latin Americans have some ‘Hispanic’ ancestry to various degrees, ancestry from India is negligible to non-existent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.163.220 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hispania is Spain

"Spain" is the modern translation of "Hispania", not "Iberia", which is the modern translation of the Latin word "Hiberia". Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hispania and Spain

About the latest edition by user:Mechanical Keyboarder, I have the following to say:

1. The etymological information about the word Hispanic is not relevant enough for the lead in this page (or in most pages for that matter), and in addition it is already covered in the section Terminology. (in a previous edition summary I mistakenly wrote section Etymology)
2. The text itself, beginning with The term derives from the Latin word Hispanicus, is quite inexact and misleading. Roman Hispania was a territory that roughly comprised modern Spain and Portugal, and the obvious fact that the word Spain derives from Hispania doesn't imply at all that Hispania means Spain.
3. In any case, the Latin origin of the word Hispanic is highly irrelevant. In modern Spanish, the word hispánico is indeed related to Spain, not to the Iberian peninsula, but that was not the case in ancient Latin.

For those reasons, I'm recovering my previous edition. --Jotamar (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

PS: I've checked that the 2 online Latin dictionaries in the references do really translate Hispania as Spain, but that just means that they're sloppy and unreliable. --Jotamar (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You still have yet to cite your own sources. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, it's so obvious that Roman Hispania comprised all of the Iberian Peninsula, that nobody cares to state it explicitly. Anyway, the page Hispania makes it very clear. --Jotamar (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

What a mess

No-one knows what "Hispanic" means. Maybe it's about race, maybe ethnicity, maybe it transcends both. At least the article makes it clear that's it's a mess. Maproom (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

United States bias

I've added maintenance tags related to the POV of this article. This article is heavily biased towards the United States and the connotations that the term "Hispanic" has within US culture. All of the notable Hispanic people featured at the top of the page are Americans. Editors should be mindful that only an extremely small proportion of the Hispanic people in the world live in the United States. Most of the article appears to present a world-wide view of the subject, but there are notable areas that can be improved tremendously. Thanks. SStephens13 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree, many of these people are pretty obscure outside the US. Most of the planet knows who Pablo Picasso or Miguel de Cervantes are. Even if we ignore their incommensurably greater contribution to hispanic culture, surely they are better candidates on their fame alone? People like Sonia Sotomayor are basically unknown outside the US. 62.31.25.93 (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

USA centric. I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.98.133 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

How out of place this article is. SuffrenXXI (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Who cares? The fact is that "Hispanic" is a word used only in the US, and the rest of the world doesn't care at all. So, of course this article has a huge bias towards the US. But who cares?? 37.133.34.252 (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

6 years later, the bias remains. So much for WP:NPV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:e2ef:8000:4190:ea08:7dc3:3500 (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Proper classification: Hispanic as a cultural heritage is more accurate

An ethonym doesn't sound right. Since we mention the US' definition, we need to classify it with a term that's just as vague and broad as their definition and includes all kinds of people--not just those of certain ethnicities like 'ethnonym' means. Ties to a Spanish-speaking country (with ties meaning anything like lineage, birth, culture, and language to name a few) doesn't describe an ethnonym because it doesn't group ethnicities. Classifying 'Hispanic' as a cultural heritage or lingual heritage better suits the US definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.39.57 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ultumately Western Europeans and especially Britons are also Hispanic or Iberian.

This fact is already well known since the advent of genetic research. These so-called anglos are Hispanic too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQHX_MwhN80

Ignorance is so incredible. Goob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You've posted almost identical topics to Talk:Nordic race, Talk:Scottish people, Talk:Hispanic and Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles. As per WP:MULTI, please limit the thread to one talk page (I suggest Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles as it is the most relevant) to avoid fragmentation of the discussion. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll. Roger (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let us kill the messenger!. Gooffy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.202.133 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaah, the cute Y Chromosome, such a good marker of invasions, population changes, founding effects and shared origins. Nice to see that WASPs and Mexicans use to share the Western European R1b Y-ADN haplogroup. The former because of the Thirteen Colonies. The latter because of the handsome and virile Spanish Conquistadors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.89.51 (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)